3.1 Transversal reading of cases
The previous chapter offered a plethora of social farming examples. Although they all share some characteristics (small-scale activities, initiatives that are driven by an intrinsic motivation rath- er than mere economic stimuli, and so on), at times they are very diverse. Although the individual cases obviously offered interesting reading, their diversity offers ample opportunity for an enriching transversal analysis as will be outlined in this chapter.
Social Farming initiatives across Europe are characterised by diversity in terms of their stages and trajectories of development;
their focus; their organisational structure; their scale of operation and their regulatory environment – among other features.
Due to historical evolution and political choices, the institutional environment represents a gradient ranging from a well-structured and controlled environment, often large-scale and institutionally driven, to more ad-hoc, small-scale initiatives. Also the expectations about the role of the institutional environment differs: in some cases (not necessarily contained within regional borders) stakeholders want more regulation and structure; in other cases, the stakehold- ers want to remain or become more independent as they fear over- regulation or a deterioration in the quality of the service.
The diversity is also apparent in the economic returns from the social farming activity. For some farmers, the care activity is part of a strict business plan and needs sufficient return on investment to be continued. For instance, some farmers in the Netherlands create a high economic return. For others, the economic effect of their care activity is of minor importance or even non-existent. Il Forteto in Italy is a case in point.
The former point about the expectations vis-à-vis economic return, is related to another factor that creates diversity within the
and emerging issues
social farm sector in Europe. The intrinsic motivation to offer care on a farm is extremely diverse. An encompassing Christian ideol- ogy in Italy; a care farm in which a biodynamic cosmology in care is central; a therapeutic-centered and meaningful activity approach by the Brothers of Charity; a mere entrepreneur for whom social farming is but another economic opportunity – these are but a few examples of ideologies and motivations that eventually result in the establishment of care activities on a farm.
This diversity leads to very different roles for agriculture within the whole realm of social farming. The role of agriculture or farm- ing activities is not limited to mere production. While in some contexts, such as the farms offering social farming in Flanders, agriculture is mainly an economic activity, in other contexts agri- culture is only a means to provide the environment in which users can receive care. Or sometime agricultural activities may just serve the purpose of sustaining a community. This range is often linked with the role played by therapeutic institutions, which vary from very being formalised and prescriptive, to non-existence or being seen as undesirable.
These diverse aspects are explored in the transversal reading of the cases that have been presented to date. Subsequently, we focus on the inclusive effects of social farming (3.2), on the relationship between social farming and landscape and environment (3.3), on gender aspects of social farming (3.4), on its economic features (3.5) and on the role of policies and institutions (3.6).
For many countries and regions involved, the SoFar project represented the first attempt to determine the nature and extent of social farming initiatives. Consequently, the availability and quali- ty of supporting data to examine cross-cutting issues in social farm- ing must be seen as a constraint on the analysis. For these reasons, the following discussion should be interpreted as exploratory and impressionistic – rather than definitive or conclusive, with the main purpose being to raise issues that warrant further examination.
3.2 Inclusive effects
Inclusion is about society changing to accommodate differ- ence and to combat discrimination (Inclusive Development, 2008).
The analysis of more than one hundred cases revealed that in all countries the service-users of social farming belong to quite dif-
ferent disadvantaged social groups: they have an intellectual dis- ability, they have issues with mental health, they have reduced work capacities, they are stigmatised, they are marginalised by the labour market etc. They are more or less excluded from mainstream society because of their difference. Therefore, in term of inclusion social farming has to be discussed from two angles:
• From the perspective of how the concept itself is integrated into inclusive development;
• From the perspective of how it can contribute to inclusion of service-users.
3.2.1 Social farming as an element of inclusive development Good practices, highlighted through various case-studies, proved that social farming is addressing key elements of inclusive development.
The first and probably the most important is the intrinsic cul- ture of collaboration, networking, listening and tolerance between quite different stakeholder groups, such as people with special needs, farmers, local communities, social/health care professionals, policy-makers or administrators etc.
Secondly, social farming represents community-based and community-oriented development approaches. In this way, it sup- ports new paradigms in the field of rural development as well as in the field of social care.
Thirdly, social farming corresponds to a human rights frame- work through the provision of individualised and personalised services based upon the social model of disability. Its special added value is the possibility for a disadvantaged person to be integrated into an environment where their personal potential may be valued and enhanced.
Fourthly, social farming has the potential to further broaden, diversify and add value to multifunctional agriculture. By interlacing farming with welfare services, social farming creates new markets for farmers, as well as an opportunity for the creation of market- based policies in both sectors through the transformation of public goods or positive externalities into private and semi-private goods.
The extent to which these qualities can be realised depends very much on the realities of the relevant cultural, political and economic environments. In spite of many commonly-accepted objectives, it is problematic to create services with the active involvement of soci- ety (Lamb & Bachrach, 2001; Brun & Rapp, 2001). The consequence
is that many disadvantaged groups in society lead an isolated life, where health professionals are the most important members of their social network (Dewees et al., 1996; Borge et al., 1999). Discussions at national and EU platforms within the SoFar project pointed to the different issues that hinder the development of social farming and suffocate its inclusive potential, such as the domination of a medi- cal model of health over a social-psychological one, the domina- tion of state-based social care over community-based ones and the unwillingness or incapacity of bureaucrats to overcome a sectoral approach to policy-making etc. Yet, social farming – although more or less still invisible and marginalised within mainstream society – provides all the evidence that change is possible.
3.2.2 Inclusion of service-users through social farming The types of barriers faced by the service-users of social farming are attitudinal, political and linked to empowerment. Social farming is challenging all of these because the focus is on working together and performing the job that has to be done. Service-users say that they con- sider themselves as workers or farmers and not as patients or clients.
Furthermore, its inclusion impact arises from the intervention that fol- lows ideas of being (Depla, 2004): as ordinary as possible (belonging to the community), as meaningful as possible (fulfillment of wishes), as integrated as possible (connectedness) and as active as possible.
Society accepts and includes a person by tendering him/her an identity (Berger, 1995). Different societies have different attitudes towards people with special needs. Sometimes it is more and sometimes less benevolent according to actual socio-economic circumstances. Yet, social farming is a system that is user-oriented and based on high ethi- cal standards and solidarity. Users are approached as so-called normal persons, accepted for their capabilities; they experience respect without prejudice. So, social farming presents a feasible scenario of transition from a medical to a social model of disability.
Furthermore, social farming takes place in the open (farms, gar- dens, parks). In this way it provides the possibility for the general public to learn about the real capabilities of people with special needs and to understand them better.
Activities that are provided by social farming are, in the majority of cases, oriented to day-care with productive and meaningful activities, as well as integration into the workforce and rehabilitation. But, at the same time, case studies indicate that social farming still depends heavily on public funding and that it is very often (in about one third of cases)
organised within the traditional institutional framework. This is why there is still a very heavy dependence by the service-users on the dif- ferent kinds of institutions that define their choices. On the other hand, there are very many cases that are community-based and business-ori- ented social organisations (gardens, farms, enterprises, co-operatives, foundations). They illustrate how to practice de-institutionalisation, socialisation and inclusion successfully.
In each and every case of social farming, there is evidence of empowerment-oriented and strengths-based practices that reflect the changing paradigm in social and health care (Chapin & Opal- Cox, 2001). The users are listened to, consulted and involved.
They are encouraged to make their own choices that help them increase their self-esteem and independence. Empowerment hap- pens through social farming via better social interaction, more numerous and diversified social contacts and better social skills.
Social farming is attracting the attention of many professionals in the social/health care sector who see it as a new professional challenge; a new and valuable opportunity to gain more knowledge and understanding of service-users’ capabilities and as a means of implementing new working methods. While they have found social farming practices demanding in terms of organisation and economics, they find it rewarding in terms of creativity, sociability, spontaneity, flexibility and its relaxed atmosphere.
The professional challenge is to deepen professional knowledge regarding the implementation of new methods of working with service-users; better working conditions; room for creativity and higher levels of motivation at work in order to create an environ- ment that leads to a life as ordinary, meaningful, integrated and active as possible.
3.3 Landscape and environment
The appearance of cultural landscapes in Europe is influenced strongly by agriculture (van der Ploeg et al., 2002). In former times, cultural landscapes were a by-product of an agriculture with lots of manual work, whereas today a diverse and aesthetic landscape is preserved and developed only by active decisions and means.
Today only 3% of the European population is engaged in agricul- ture, creating the landscape for the rest of society. Landscape is a factor of production for farmers. But landscape is also a place for
living, working, home, experience, recreation, moving through and making connections.
The connectedness of nature and culture is a typical feature of European cultural landscapes. The conversion to environmental friendly practices such as organic farming can be the starting point for higher levels of biodiversity. The realisation of this potential depends on whether the farmers recognise nature and landscape development as objectives of their farming styles and whether they succeed in integrating them into their agricultural practices.
Against the background of European Union agricultural reform, according to which the ecological achievements of farms are to be rewarded in the future, and at the same time, jobs on farms are to be created outside the sphere of agricultural production, there is a new potential to develop organic farming in a multifunctional man- ner. Such multifunctionality can mean combining the production of food with social functions, such as providing space for recreation, care of the landscape, and the provision of care for those with dis- abilities. (Lenhard et al., 1997, Kalisch & van Elsen, 2008).
Research suggests that the relationship people have with nature and landscape also forms their opinions about it and thus constitutes part of their identity. Loss of identity is one of the problems experi- enced by people with drug addiction and other marginalised groups in society (van Elsen et al., 2006). Could the approach of social farming also include care and therapy for nature and landscapes? Are there already examples of combining such aspects of multifunctionality?
And, primarily, can multifunctionality play a role in enhancing a feel- ing of identity? Are social forms of agriculture destined to combine organic farming with nature conservation?
From a theoretical point of view landscape work on farms and people with disabilities can be synergetic. It provides plenty of varied manual work that can be combined with daily routine work – especially in winter or other times when there is not much agricultural work to do. The strong communities (like associations that include parents of service-users and other supporters) support the farms that are not so dependent on profit in comparison with ordinary family farms. Through integration of people with disabili- ties, the need to produce high yields is lower and the ability and the desire to care and protect people and the landscape higher. Land- scape work can be used as an advertisement for the institution and to promote the farm. The philosophy of the community and identi-
fication with the location can thus be supported. Disadvantages lie in the additional need for resources that are already scarce. There is competition for time, space, workers and a shortage of profes- sional staff. Financial issues – you cannot sell landscape – may not be solved by the community alone. Another problem might be the capabilities of the people with disabilities. The potential of land- scape work depends on these issues.
We have already made reference to the variable quality of the data supporting much of the analysis within the SoFar project – given its tentative and exploratory nature. Nevertheless, we can report some trends/observations related to landscape issues, based on the national/regional surveys of social farms undertaken as part of the effort to establish the “State of the Art” in each country.
The share of organic social farms might be an indicator for increased environmental and ethical awareness on social farms. The contribution of organic farming to the protection of species and the environment has been proven by many studies, so it seems worth- while to compare the amount of organic care farms in the different countries. Within the SoFar project, the number of organic farms with social integration varies among the countries and does not give a consistent picture. Whereas in Germany about 60% of the social farms are certified organic, there are only 36 (40%) of 90 surveyed farms organic or low input in Ireland and 20 (13%) of 155 farms that are interested in social care work organic in Slovenia.
Although the database of each country differs, the results show that the share of organic farms among the social farms is much higher than the average number of organic farms in the countries. That leads to the conclusion that these farms contribute per se to a healthy envi- ronment, even if they do not offer special landscape activities.
Turning to landscape and conservation activities undertaken by social farms in participating countries in SoFar, in the Netherlands 90% of the care farms are actively improving their environment by nature conservation measurements and 25% of the care farms (com- pared to 11% other farms) get some additional income for these measures. Also in Flanders many care farms are actively improving their environment and do not see any obstructing factors to do so – besides missing time and financial support. Many social farms in Ireland include some kind of environmental education.
In Italy, the social co-operatives run landscape maintenance
groups and get supported by an Italian law that favours social enter- prises when tendering for public contracts. These public orders are mostly simple and unsophisticated landscape maintenance measures in urban areas, rather than activities concerned with nature conserva- tion or landscape development. Low profile landscape maintenance seems to be rather suited as an activity for employing underprivi- leged people because the staff do not need much training, land own- ership is not an issue and the income can be acquired without high costs or expensive instruments. At least some examples in Germany show that there is a threat when social entrepreneurs have to compete with landscape maintenance businesses.
Activities like mowing grass and caring for green space can be seen as a step towards other landscape activities to preserve and develop the biodiversity and biotopes within European cultural landscapes. Social faming has the potential to combine therapeutic goals, the employment of people and social activities to support nature. The awareness for this challenge within social farming should be enhanced.
An example of the synergy between social agriculture and the development of the natural surroundings is provided by Surcenord Farm (see text box).
Surcenord Farm Surcenord Farm is an organic gras-
sland farm in France founded in 1978 which keeps cattle and forms part of a remedial educational institution with several residential homes and wor- kshops. Fifteen young people with learning disabilities aged between 15 and 27 receive instruction and the- rapy (riding, art therapy), work on the farm and undertake domestic duties.
The two farmers place the land and the farm facilities at the disposal of the instructor and carers. Some seven or eight young people at a time, always accompanied by educators, are invol- ved in the farm work which mainly comprises work in the cattle sheds,
harvesting fodder, woodland mana- gement and landscape care as well as the maintenance of fences and traditional irrigation systems.
The farm is situated on about 100 ha of largely sloping land at 850-1140 m altitude in the Vosges (cf. Köppl & van Elsen 2005). It is managed as pastu- re and mowed for forage. The live- stock comprises 25 cows and calves, about 20 beef cattle, 10 heifers and 10 horses. The products sold are meat, wood and woodchips. In 2004, the subsidies, which include state support for integration of the people with disa- bilities, comprised 44% of turnover.
The management of Surcenord Farm are working to open up the landscape, part of which has become scrubby with broom, by planned clearing. Farmer André Frommelt stressed that they are not trying to revert to the ‘monotony’ of the bare hillsides that were there at the end of the 19th century but rather they value a ‘diversity of habitats’ on the land they manage and strive to ‘maintain and further develop’ them. During tree-felling, individual pines, firs, rowans, junipers, dogrose and whitebeam are preserved. The tree stumps are left in the ground and eventually rot away. The fellings are used in the woodchip central-heating system which meets all the heating and hot water requirements of the living accommodation and the farm buildings, using some 3,000 cubic metres of fuel annually.
Farmer André Frommelt sees himself as ‘more a student of nature than an environmentalist’. He is a member of several natu- ralist associations, is an amateur botanist and frequently devotes himself to the observation of wild animals. The cautious further opening of the landscape while maintaining a mosaic of open spaces, woodland margins, bushes and individual trees is intended to meet the requirements of, for example, red-backed shrikes and capercaillies. To protect whinchats, certain areas are used only after their nesting season. A sloping bog, which is subject to nature conservation status, is used particularly extensively and parts of it are fenced off to protect the coralroot orchid (Corallorhiza trifida), an endangered species. At the same site, André Frommelt would like to try to re-establish Bruchia vogesiaca, a species of moss that was discovered in the Vosges but has disappeared. In recent years there has been a close collaboration with the Ballons National Park in the Vosges. Partly at the instigation of the farmers, the Park has com- missioned various studies on botanical and entomological ques- tions and these in turn have yielded information on management for the farmers.
The farmers are looking for opportunities to make a wider circle of people aware of ecological issues. Furthermore there is interest in ‘stronger and more regular scientific guidance’ directed towards concerns about species conservation. A medium-term plan for the farm is the construction of a solar-heating system for hot water and the installation of an ecological system for treating their own sew- age. As regards education, they are considering employing adult carers to help with setting up a meat and milk processing unit.
To summarise the multifunctionality perspective of the care farm approach: Care farms “use” nature as a tool to “heal” or to
employ people with disabilities; they use “natural processes” (such as animal-human interactions, natural rhythms in horticulture).
Moreover, care farms can also contribute to the care of healthy nature and landscapes by additional manpower (service-users) and less economic pressure (additional income). That makes social farming a “win-win” situation, integrating functions such as caring for people with disabilities and contributing to the development of rural landscapes.
Landscape care needs many helping hands. Social farming allows the use of hedgerows for dietary fodder and it allows exten- sive care for biotopes and provides experiences for children on school farms. Green care in agriculture or “social farming” might lead to new perspectives for healthy agriculture, healthy people and healthy landscapes in Europe. This makes social farming an impor- tant step towards healthy people and healthy landscapes.
3.4 Gender issues
As noted previously, Social Farming crosses many sectoral boundaries – but clearly agriculture and social care are central concerns. In both of these arenas, the analysis of gender issues is the basis of a wide-ranging body of academic and policy litera- ture. Recurring themes include the feminisation of the care-sector workforce; gender equality in the community and voluntary sector;
the invisibility of care labour (both paid and unpaid) and the com- modification of care (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2004; Daly & Rake, 2003; European Foundation for Living and Working Conditions, 2006; Ungerson, 1997). Regarding agriculture specifically, a variety of gender equality issues arise in relation to professional status;
recognition; visibility and contribution to the sector (European Commission, 2002).
Notwithstanding the caveat on the quality of data emerging from the SoFar investigations due to its explorative and limited character, we can nonetheless provide some insights into some gender-related issues highlighted above – from a social farming perspective. Regarding the feminisation of care work, Daly and Rake (2003) argue that this is not the case only within the family/
domestic sphere, but is also reflected in paid care work. As the sec- tor has grown, women have formed an ever-larger majority of paid
care workers. Insights from various dimensions of the SoFar work (i.e. information contained in the national/regional State of the Art reports; national/regional case studies; national/regional/EU- level platforms addressed – all of which are addressed in Chapters 1, 2 and 4 respectively of this volume) provide some support for this contention – but it is not uniform across all regions/countries studied. For example, in the case of Italy, the “typical” worker in agricultural social co-operatives is described as “young, female and qualified” and it is estimated that women account for approxi- mately 70% of the workforce in this sector. In Slovenia, the State of the Art report noted that on approximately 70% of Care Farms, it is women who take responsibility for the service users. In the Nether- lands, the high proportion of females among volunteer workers in social farming was noteworthy. In some instances (Germany, Flan- ders), where social farming activities were differentiated between those that were strongly “agricultural-based” and those which were
“care-based”, female staff were more likely to be assigned to the lat- ter category of work.
It appears that women are highly visible and perhaps “over- represented” among the rank-and-file workforce in many social farming initiatives. The extent to which this visibility and level of participation is mirrored in other related arenas – such as net- working, advocacy, engagement with policy makers etc. – is an important issue, particularly given the stated objectives of the SoFar project. These include the development of networking mechanisms between practitioners/service-providers and researchers as well as measures to support the design of relevant policies for social/care farming at regional and European level. One relevant indicator is the gender breakdown of participation in various platform events organised in the course of the SoFar work. In the case of the first European platform, 22% of the “invited” participants (6 of the 27) were female, while in the second EU platform, 26% (8 of the 31 invit- ed participants) were female. If the national SoFar research project teams are included as participants at these events, the proportions rise to 31% and 33% respectively, reflecting the different gender bal- ance among the research contingent involved. Available data on the gender composition of the National Platforms (NPs) suggest a more mixed picture. Female participation rates at these events ranged from 20-25% (Germany 2nd NP, Ireland 1st NP); 35-40% (Flanders 2nd NP, Ireland 2nd NP) to approximately 50% (Slovenia 2nd NP).
While it is not possible to generalise from such limited evidence, it is worth noting that the relevant academic and policy literature (relating to agriculture; social care; community/voluntary sector) makes frequent reference to women’s under-representation at stra- tegic/decision-making/policy-influencing levels in these sectors (European Commission, 2002; National Development Plan Gender Equality Unit 2002, European Foundation for Living and Working Conditions, 2006). While the above discussion has focused on gen- der issues related to the provision of care services, there are also insights on gender issues and the receipt of care services from the SoFar work. Again, based on information from the national State of the Art Reports and the case studies that were undertaken, the general picture that emerges is that service-users are predominantly male – approximately 75% in many cases (Ireland, France, Nether- lands and Slovenia). While this may be explained to some extent by a tendency to ascribe gendered work roles in relation to farming, it may also reflect the difficulties for recipients of care services in balancing their own roles as care-givers. For example, a theme that emerged among the national reports was that initiatives with resi- dential programmes (typically alcohol or drug treatment centres) are frequently inaccessible to women due to the lack of childcare provision. Another salient factor cited frequently by service provid- ers is the higher incidence of certain types of intellectual disability (e.g. Autism) among the male population.
Because of the “pioneering” and exploratory nature of much of the SoFar work, it can provide only partial answers to questions such as – whether there are different roles for men/women as service providers in social farming; whether there are gender dif- ferences in the uptake of certain types of initiatives and if so can we explain them; what is the gender profile of service users and providers across different countries/regions; does it vary much and why? Within the SoFar work, the desire to receive recognition and the ability to influence policy/decision-making processes have emerged as central challenges for all those who engage in it. From a gender perspective, what is at issue is whether such challenges are likely to be equally problematic for both men and women.
3.5 Economic features
The majority of social farming cases that were studied are organ- ised in three types of working forms: farms (family farms, com- mercial farms), social organizations (social enterprises, social co- operatives) and institutions. Family farms are dominant in Flanders and in The Netherlands, while the organisational structure in other countries is more diverse. In France, social farming operates in the form of community gardens and urban farms, while in Italy social organisations prevail, In Slovenia, Germany and Ireland, social farming mostly takes place within various social care institutions.
Horticulture, mixed farming and animal husbandry are the most frequent types of production practiced by social farming initiatives.
In Italy, France, Ireland and Slovenia there are some cases that are providing green services such as the maintenance of public parks.
As to the size of utilised land, there are cases that use less than 1 ha and cases that are using several hundred ha. In France and Slovenia social farming initiatives are rather small-scale operations using up to 20 ha of land. In The Netherlands where family farms are the dominant actors in social farming, they use from 20 ha to 40 ha, while family farms in Flanders, who are the main providers of green care in that region, tend to be slightly larger. Social farming initiatives in Italy are in the same range. On the other hand, social farming initiatives in Germany are comparatively large operations.
There is evidence that the modern concept of social farming has strong origins in the agricultural tradition in Europe. In Italy and Ireland more than half of the initiatives have been in operation for 20 years or more. Two of the cases studied in Ireland have been operational since the 1960s and in Italy since the 1970s. In Germany, the 1980s was the period when very many initiatives started to operate, while in France and Slovenia it was the 1990s. Institutional changes after the year 2000 in Flanders (the introduction of subsi- dies) and The Netherlands (personalised budget schemes) boosted the provision of green care on family farms in both countries.
Due to different organisational forms of social farming initia- tives, the number of the service-users involved differs too. In the case of small-scale initiatives (community gardens, urban farms and family farms) the number of the service-users involved is rather small, while in the case of institutions and social organisations, the number is much larger. The most frequent number of service-users per initiative is three, while the average number is more than thirty.
The table shows that numeri- cally, the smaller initiatives are far more frequent. In terms of service-users, on the other hand, there is a greater reli- ance on large-scale initiatives.
Day care with produc- tive and meaningful activi- ties, living and working, as well as labour integration and rehabilitation are the most fre- quent services that are pro- vided by social farming initia-
tives in the majority of cases in all countries. Therapeutic activities are much less frequent in the portfolio of social farming initiatives.
About one-third of the cases studied depend on public funds, while about one-fifth is funded by a combination of public and private funds. This varies widely between different countries and regions.
Various EU Projects have been instrumental in establishing some projects in Ireland and Slovenia.
Social organisations in all countries combine public/private sources and market-based sales activities to fund their operations.
Only a few cases are funded from private sources exclusively.
In Flanders family farms involved in green care receive a special grant of 40 € per day, irrespective of the number of users. Most care farms have a yearly revenue from care activities of 1,000 € to 10,000 € per year. The yearly costs vary from 100 € to 5,000 € per year. Insights from the Netherlands suggests that provision of care for 5 service-users, who are on the farm for 4 days a week with an average subvention per user of 50 € per day, generates additional income of 48,000 € annually.
In this situation the costs are low and the contribution to family income will probably be more than 40,000 €. Social co-operatives in Italy have an average yearly turnover per organisation 770,000 € in case of social care, and 473,000 € in case of workforce integration.
Agricultural co-operatives
utilized land, ha Structure, % (n=113)
>1 6,2
1,1-10 18,6
10,1-20 12,4
20,1-30 17,7
30,1-40 16,8
40,1-100 8,8
100,1-200 3,5
<200,1 8,0
Unkonwn 7,1
Total 100,0
number of users Structure, % (n=113)
Up to 10 23,9
11 to 20 21,2
21-30 7,1
31-40 7,1
41-50 5,3
51-60 3,5
More than 61 13,3
Unknown 18,6
Total 100,0
that are hosting in average three service-users per day generate 165
€ through their contract for a daily grant via social care public bod- ies. French social farming initiatives that combine organic vegetable production with the provision of different kinds of social services generates from150,000 € up to 1.5 million € annually. In Ireland, a farm that collaborates with a health institution as a subcontractor gets 36,000 € per person per year on a residential basis and approxi- mately 20,000 € per year for non-residential services. A family farm that co-operates with a social care institution in Slovenia shares 25-50 € per person per day as this is the amount that the institu- tion is paid for its day care services. Slovenian social organisations involved in the provision of employment rehabilitation and labour integration for 50 users generate about 600,000 € per year through the provision of green services. It is entitled to an annual subsidy of 12,600 € per person.
Although social farming initiatives are non-profit mainly, it is obvious that social farming seeks and requires good management to ensure that activities are economically viable. Costs and revenues are more or less balanced on about half of social farming initiatives in all countries, while for the other half, this ratio does not apply – costs are rather high and revenues are rather low.
Investments in green care activities (facilities, equipment, tools for the service-users) depend not only on the economic situation but also on role of such services in the portfolio of the social farming initiative, as well as on the objectives in this field. One French co- operative has invested 400,000 €. In the Netherlands family farms’
investment into care activities varies between 200 € and 90,000 €.
Two Slovenian social organisations with large-scale operations in green services (maintaining parks) invested between 300,000 € and 450,000 € in equipment and tools for the service-users.
It was very difficult for the promoters of social farming initia- tives to assess the future prospects for their economic situation. Yet, those who made such a guess (about one third of all cases), were more or less optimistic: they felt that their economic situation would be better in five years’ time. They envisage that revenues from social services will increase more than the costs of their provision.
The holders of social farming initiatives were very reluctant to evaluate the economic importance of the social activities on the overall economic performance of an initiative. The majority of cases studied in Germany, relating to foundations in particular, reported
a considerable economic impact. The same situation is perceived by an Italian Type A social co-operative. Slovenian and German social organisations and institutions, as well as some family farms in the Netherlands see this impact as moderate. Very many family farms in Flanders consider it as limited or non-existent. Therefore, the situation is quite diverse. The economic impact depends on many factors such as holder’s attitude, his/her ambition in the field of social farming, the local system of social/heath care and associated policies etc.
3.6 Policies and institutions in social farming As emerged from the analysis of the cases, and as already pre- sented in Chapter 1, social farming is quite differently shaped in different EU countries, notwithstanding the fact that it can present similar features and characteristics at the same time. Such diversity is based upon four main aspects. Each project is distinct because it is born from grassroots level with few opportunities for exchange with others; it may be directed at very different targets in terms of service- users; growth occurs in different institutional contexts regarding the social sector; and it follows a process of progressive adaptation depending on the emerging needs in local communities.
At EU level, the term “social farming” suggests a link with rural development policies as well as with social intervention at different institutional levels and in different fields, despite the fact that the process of recognition and integration between these policies is still under construction.
Regarding its integration into rural development (RD) policies, social farming (SF) fits with many emerging issues, as presented by the cases illustrated in Chapter 2:
• SF promotes a wider idea of multifunctional agriculture (as is the case for Hoeve de Ploeg farm in Flanders);
• SF diversifies on-farm activities and can involve new family mem- bers in health/care provision, enhancing job opportunities for women and young people (like in the Netherlands or in Flanders)
• SF is in keeping with the diversity that characterises rural EU areas and their social structure;
• SF may represent an opportunity to reduce the lack of services in rural areas and to re-design them in a more innovative way
(Bellechambre farm in the Isere region in France acts in this way for adults with autism), increasing the quality of life and reducing the gap between urban and rural areas (in the case of the Kuhhorst farm in Germany), with regard to health/care pro- visions, especially for groups such as children (as in the Forteto case) and the elderly;
• SF improves farmers’ reputation in society and – directly or indi- rectly – their income (an aspect evident in the Colombini farm, Italy);
• SF offers services to urban citizens and establishes a new bridge between urban and rural areas (for farms working in peri-urban areas – e.g. Kuhhorst and the Colombini farm);
• SF re-introduces the concept of gift and reciprocity value, rein- forcing social capital (this is clear in the Hoeve de Ploeg farm);
• SF reconnects local agriculture to local needs in a more sustai- nable and responsible way (the Brdca farm in Slovenja clearly reconnects agriculture to local social needs);
• SF fits in with a scenario of sustainable rurality that is able to organise vibrant communities in different EU rural areas and to offer more sustainable models for emerging countries.
SF should be better understood in the context of a multifunc- tional agriculture in order to promote innovative patterns of rural development that are less dependent on compensation and funding and better rooted in local resources and in a pro-active process of change. For the same reasons, the role of social services in rural development should be better analysed by RD policies, owing to their strong linkages and their involvement in rural development processes. This point has already been made by the Oecd5. SF can improve social services in rural areas but can also offer new and different solutions to social inclusion in urban and peri-urban areas (this is the case for Solid’Action as well as for Belmont farm).
5 The Oecd Cologne meeting identified service delivery as a key to the develop- ment of rural regions. In this respect 6 key policy areas to improve service delivery in rural areas were mentioned: coherence with local needs and assets; equity and effi- ciency; innovative contracts among urban and rural; introduction of a logic based on investment rather than spending; organisation of effective and inclusive governance and strong innovation. It should be observed that SF is able to fit with all the six points addressed by the key message of the Oecd Cologne meeting on Innovative Service Delivery and in this respect SF is able to offer more than minimum support to improve the social fabric in rural areas.
The definition of an EU common social policy is far from established at the present time. This is not to say that the EU has no policies in the social field. The intervention of the EU in social matters is based on the so-called “open co-ordination method” that encourages co-operation and exchange among Member States by using and promoting the use of best practice; the organisation of some minimum rules and regulations and some interventions approved by the Council.
In the field of health/care/educational services, SF is able to offer a new response to:
• the demand for new tools and innovative processes that are able to support professional services (farms like Belmont and Bellec- hambre came about through social care professionals who promo- ted the use of agriculture to improve the efficacy of the services offered) by valorising nature and informal relationships (Hoeve de Ploeg, Colombini and Brdca farms are clear examples where family farms were introduced in the local social stuctures);
• the increasing demand for personalisation and effectiveness of public health/care services;
• the opportunity to move to a caring strategy within the welfare system (see among the others the Bellechambre farm and the Belmont farm);
• the demand for services based on flexibility and proximity (as is the case of services for older people in the Netherlands);
• the need to increase efficiency in public services by using scope economies instead of scale economies.
The presence of different systems influences the organisation of services for rural areas, as well as the organisation of SF practices. In all the cases presented, the external institutional and cultural envi- ronment represents an active medium capable of influencing the evolution of a project by reinforcing it or putting constraints on it.
Perhaps, SF links together two sectors that are very differently regulated at EU level. The Cap is the most integrated policy in EU, while in social affairs, national policies are always dominant within a process of common co-ordination. Also welfare models6 are very
6 According with M. sibilla (2008) four different models can be defined across Europe:
The social democratic: organised n northern EU Countries such as Finland, Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands. This ensures universal rights to all citizens and it is based on high level of taxes.
differently shaped in EU countries in terms of how they impact on SF applications. At the same time, even where countries adopt the same welfare model7, SF may be present ins very different applica- tions and characteristics8.
In all EU countries the welfare system is under strong pressure.
EU intervention is acting to facilitate co-operation and benchmark- ing of different systems in order to achieve common results. A bet- ter understanding of SF practices, their organisation and discussion about best practices, could facilitate the evaluation and the diffusion of innovative tools for social and workforce inclusion.
Most of cases presented are working in an intersface between agricultural and health/social policies. Working in this space presents some opportunities but also some difficulties. Local project holders, especially when they are not strictly connected with insti- tutional bodies, face some problems in trying order to harmonise their initiatives and to find material and personal supports. This is less relevant in case of the Netherlands and Flanders where the formalisation of the SF project is more effective and where rules and procedures are able to facilitate the start-up of new projects.
What is clear at this stage in Europe is that SF is a concrete activ- ity, differently organised and harmonised in local/national rules and institutions, aiming for a clearer recognition from different stakeholders and policies.
The corporatist model: (France, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Luxembourg) where welfare is mostly related to workforce participation (workfare). There are different instruments that promote vocational training and a minimum wage for people not included in the labour force
The liberal model: it is mainly related to the Anglophone culture. It is mostly based on different supports for families with specific problems (working families’ tax credits, disabled persons’ tax credits, child benefit).
The mediterranean model: it is based on a welfare mix (or welfare society) where the first and second sector (public and private) are integrated by the third sector and the family (fourth sector). The system is sometimes fragmented within different schemes.
Voluntary associations are increasingly more active in organising networks, families play a strong role while there is no minimum wage for those who do not work.
7 When we consider countries that adopt a social democratic model, we note that in Finland and Denmark social farming is not very well developed while it is the opposite case in the Netherlands and in Norway.
8 In France and in Germany which adopt a corporatist model, SF is mostly addres- sed through workforce inclusion while in the Netherlands a wider range of services is offered.
There is a general question here. Is social farming just a useful way to re-organise care services by involving farmers, or does it represent the “tip of the iceberg” of a more fundamental change that is open to creating new linkages within the social and economic organisation of local society and to open the space for a ‘fifth sector’
related to organisations not specialised in service provisions?
Most of these aspects were analysed in depth during the SoFar project in the various platform activities by the different actors engaging in them. The subsequent chapters will provide more of a focus on them. The subsequent chapters will address these themes as well as possible strategies to adopt in order to increase the aware- ness of Social Farming across Europe.
4.1 Overview
This chapter focuses on the presentation of the methodological approach adopted within the SoFar project that involved stake- holders in a collective dynamic, linking together researchers and practitioners, anchored in each country/region and scaled up at European level.
The mobilisation of this participatory approach led to the pro- duction of a shared vision of the strengths and weaknesses of social farming in Europe and identified key issues, questions and priori- ties to be dealt with at European level, as conditions for the devel- opment of social farming in Europe.
Those current policy issues need to be addressed by an intense European networking dynamic, anchored in our territories. It needs to be multi-purpose, with different mechanisms adopted for differ- ent functions. The SoFar networking dynamic shows the necessity of intervening simultaneously in different interdependent fields – poli- cy-making, practices, skills recognition and knowledge production.
4.2 Action research to involve stakeholders in establishing social farming as a european policy focus
In this part, we outline the participatory approach that was implemented to involve stakeholders in the development of a Euro- pean view on social farming and we also provide a preliminary assessment of the methodology used. It reflects the innovative way in which action research has been implemented in the development of social farming at a European scale. It also tries to identify the limitations in extrapolating this methodology to other contexts.
perspective of social farming
4.2.1 Intentions and unexpected results
The major goals of the SoFar project as outlined in its Technical Annexe are:
— To facilitate increased opportunities for meeting, making com- parisons and interaction among participants, eventually leading them to produce shared position papers, at country/regional as well as European level, that will contain strategic proposals for innovation related to social farming (‘innovation strategies’).
— To create “a platform around the topic of social farming – brin- ging together key stakeholders and rural development resear- chers that can support the design of future policies at regional and European levels”.
The SoFar project looked at involving social farming stakehold- ers through the implementation of a participatory process utilis- ing the platform methodology. This had a dual focus: to produce grounded research outcomes – innovation strategies – through the expression by stakeholders of “their” local diagnosis, needs and priorities; incorporating these findings as research inputs and legiti- mating those outcomes by organising European platforms with the participation of these stakeholders.
The expression of their vision of social farming and the legiti- mation exercise necessitated the implementation of a participatory approach at all levels: regional, country and European. This social process produced unexpected results: the emergence of a European network connecting professionals to each other, the gradual con- struction of a common, shared discourse and vision9 on the prob- lems and priorities (more than the solutions) all of which eventually contributed to forging a social identity for this network.
From a research perspective, the social farming network was subject to the social process which took place during the project.
We will see below that this evolution introduced some tensions into the project process arising from a conflict between constraints imposed by the contractual obligations of the project (limited time;
imperative to produce particular outcomes) and the expectations generated by the social process, with its slow and uncertain evolu- tion, producing its own knowledge and vision.
9 Expressed by the German position paper for a European manifesto (see below).
4.2.2 The development of the participatory approach from local/national to European level
The methodological proposition used to develop this participa- tory approach was inspired by the Future Workshop model con- ceived and tested by the Danish Board of Technology10. The Future Workshop Model was used as a reference point for the develop- ment of country/ regional platforms.
The central pillar of the methodology was the platform tool.
The platform approach was constructed using two consecutive national/regional platform meetings and two European platform meetings. One goal of the whole dynamic was to build a cumula- tive process. Each of those meetings (from country/regional level to European level) contributed to the construction of:
— mutual understanding of the situation in each country
— identification of “what we have in common”,
— insights into “what we can learn from each other”,
— joint reflection on questions and issues to be addressed to policy makers at European and at local levels.
All of this process needed to be rooted in the experiences and shared interests of the many stakeholders involved in the develop- ment of social farming in Europe that could be mobilised in those different fora.
The time issue proved to be a sensitive one. As with any project, there was a limited time-frame and resources. In this case, each sequence had to be choreographed carefully, as each stage in the sequence was feeding into the subsequent one. Consequently, the participatory dynamic was based on a gradual construction process, aimed at elaborating/producing knowledge and propositions that needed collective involvement at local and European level.
The following scheme was adopted:
From month 8 to 16 of the project:
1. Each country organised one platform which lasted one day or more;
2. Then the 1st EU meeting (month 16) took place with the partici- pation of representatives from each national platform.
10 Experimented by the Danish Board of Technology, Copenhagen, Denmark.
http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=1235&toppic=kategori12&language=uk#future.
Box 4.1 – Key elements of the Future Workshop model approach The purpose of this workshop method
was to allow for the formulation of concrete solutions and action pro- posals based on participants’ own experiences that can be put into prac- tice. It was also to forge convergence between stakeholders’ concerns and visions towards a common strategic perspective. This method works best with 15-25 participants. This kind of workshop is a specific type of mee- ting that follows certain rules. During the course of the workshop there is time for brainstorming, debate, pre- sentation and proposition. The work alternates between plenary sessions and group work. The workshop for- mat and rules are there to ensure that everyone is heard, that all ideas are included in the debate and that parti- cipants work towards formulating an action/strategy plan. The Future Wor- kshop model incorporates a 3-stage work process:
• A critical analysis is undertaken by each stakeholder group: attention is given to the critical analysis of the current situation. This analysis is documented. The most important points are selected and grouped into themes. This session conclu- des with a plenary where all groups present their diagnoses.
• The visionary phase done by each stakeholder group. The critical analysis in Phase 1 forms the basis of a brainstorming session. Sugge- stions and ideas are noted down on
large poster boards as draft action proposals and these are grouped into themes. This session conclu- des with a plenary.
• The implementation/strategy deve- lopment phase with mixed groups of stakeholders. This phase focuses on a critical evaluation of the draft action proposals. The possibility for action and strategy-building is assessed and the elaboration is developed further with the empha- sis on more concrete steps towards action or the implementation of a project or development strategy.
The time-frame for actions – from short to long term – is an important factor to take into consideration.
This phase concludes with a plena- ry session.
Generation and presentation of results:
• Results: Action/policy proposals.
• Indirect results: The workshop cre- ates debate and dialogue that often continues beyond the framework of the country/regional exercise.
New links are forged that can lead to further exchange among the par- ticipants through their respective networks.
• Presentation of results: All wor- kshop results are collated into a report into which additional mat- ters relating to the project can also be included. This input was crucial for the European platform.
From month 16 to 24:
3. Each country organised a second platform;
4. The 2nd EU meeting was organised subsequently (month 24).
In between these events, there was a fine-tuning process, using email, web and small-group meetings with specific groups of stake- holders.
Methodology of the European platforms:
The two European platforms had different objectives and char- acteristics.
The first one aimed to build a common knowledge base about the different situations in the various countries, in terms of experi- ences and the policy context. Understanding such diversity was considered as the appropriate starting point from which to reflect on common problems and priorities. So this first platform dedicated a lot of time to presentations and discussions about the concrete situations and lived experience of participants.
4.2.3 Some lessons learned from this participatory approach To determine if this participatory approach could be used to stimulate social processes and deliberative policy elaboration in other contexts, we need to assess it.
The difficulty in undertaking such an exercise is in how to evalu- ate the quality of a social process. Should this be done by:
— examining the construction of a local and European networking relationship?
— examining the collective involvement in this construction pro- cess?
— observing policy-makers’ engagement with the process at natio- nal and European level?
— with reference to participants’ own assessment of the process?
Stakeholders involvement
160 people attended the first series of national platforms that took place during 2007.
170 people took part in the 2nd series which took place in early 2008 – many of whom were “new” participants that had not been involved in the first round of national platforms. These people were mainly social farming professionals (from farms); social and health services workers and researchers. Politicians and officials from
relevant administrations did not appear in significant numbers in most countries.
Between 3 to 5 people per country emerged from these national platforms to take part in the European platforms, while almost 50% of those who attended the second European platform had not attended the first one.
In this process, policy-makers were conspicuous by their absence We noted that policy-makers were weakly represented at local and European levels. Despite invitations and the project’s clear focus on the policy agenda, policy-makers were not significantly repre- sented. This is true in particular regarding the local platforms and the 1st European platform. There were some encouraging signs at the 2nd European platform. Nevertheless, even at the 2nd European platform, Common Agricultural Policy officials did not appear, although a European policy adviser and an officer from Social Affairs contrib- uted and intervened. It is worth remembering that the SoFar project had the objective of formulating proposals for the European policy agenda about the development of the social functions of agriculture.
At European level, this absence of policy-makers and decision-mak- ers from such fora is quite a common feature. It reveals a typical but very real disconnect between research outcomes and policy-making.
Network-building and collective learning
In some countries, stakeholders already knew each other and were part of similar networks – as in the cases of Belgium (Flan- ders), Netherlands, Slovenia and Italy. In the other countries – Ireland, Germany and France, the SoFar meetings facilitated the building of networks and addressed the issue of how to make those networks develop after the SoFar project.
In terms of how we assess the quality of the networks emerging from the from SoFar process (their level of activity, their impact) – only time will tell. During the project, they were able to produce a diagnosis of their situation and a joint reflection on priorities at local and European level.
This gradual construction occurred over one full year from Spring 2007 (1st platform) to Spring 2008 (2nd platform), with the 1st European platform taking place (Autumn 2007). This suggests that collective learning at country and European levels needed time to become established, for the deliberations to take place and for the building of collective identity. A key outcome expressed by partici-
pating stakeholders was the understanding of the reality of social farming in other countries; the awareness of the rich diversity and the expression/recognition of common problems and interests.
The German proposition put forward in the course of the par- ticipatory process a proposal to develop and adopt a Social Farming manifesto for Europe that reflects the emergence of this collective identity. The adoption by all countries of this manifesto during the SoFar project would have been a major outcome, anticipating the
Box 4.2 - Collective Swot analysis of social farming in Europe Strengths
• Practices & Relations: high potential;
tailor-made practices; comparatively cheap; small groups, social dimen- sion, familiar character, large supply;
• Territorial Dimension: Integration at territorial level among society and economy; Increased sensitiveness and awareness, new ties, interest from consumers, effects on landscape;
• Entrepreneurial Dimension: innova- tion & diversification; involving youth in agriculture;
• Care users: strong benefits, support from families.
opportunities
• Local Factors: increasing sensitivity and demand from society, positive reputa- tion; newcomers into agriculture;
• Policies & Institutions: new judicial fra- mework; wider recognition and sup- port, multifunctional agriculture;
• Practices: shift from medical to social model (citizens instead of patients), community integration (care in the community);
• Networks: broadening relations and networks;
• Marketing: enhanced reputation/
image;
• Increase in need: European countries face an increase in citizens that will need care (e.g. ageing of society).
Weaknesses
• Rules and laws: judicial framework;
limited extent of diffusion and con- solidation; gap between demand and supply, dependence on public sup- port, lack of recognition and evidence, strong heterogeneity;
• Start-up: Difficulties in starting up;
distances (physically and figurative- ly); difficulties in integrating different professional “cultures”; confusion of roles and competences;
• Local factors: Prejudices about disabi- lity; Lack of transport.
Threats
• Policies & Institutions: bureaucracy;
standardisation, loss of original value systems; no institutional change, lack of interest;
• Actors: Competition among actors;
development of opportunistic beha- viours; market-oriented welfare systems; creations of “hospitals in the countryside”;
• Practices: incidents.
continuation of what has been established during the SoFar project.
However, this did not happen and only Germany published the manifesto and distributed it among its partners. In other countries, the consultative process on the content of the manifesto is still on- going (just before the end of the SoFar project). Why? The adoption of the manifesto proposed by German stakeholders by all project partners would have necessitated dedicated time at local and Euro- pean level for the deliberations, amendments and adoption as a SoFar “outcome”. However, the time required could not be found, as it needed to be allocated to other goals and commitments – deter- mined at the outset of the project.
Here we can see that the deliberative logic, with its uncertain and unplanned outcomes, is in conflict with the project manage- ment logic which must follow what has been promised (obligations regarding the results) three years previously.
A shared vision of strengths and weaknesses of social farming in Europe
According to the practitioners’ points of view, a collective view of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (Swot) in social farming can be summed up as in box 4.2.
In all SoFar countries, meetings with a variety of stakeholders were organised. During these meeting the strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities were discussed.
According to the views of practitioners, a Swot on social farming can be summed up in a common grid as shown in box 4.2.
This synthesis represents the common grounds identified from the national or regional Swot analyses presented above (Chapter 2).
Different limitations may contribute to inhibiting the develop- ment of social farming, such as:
— The disconnect between farming, social inclusion, employment and health care policies
— The novelty of systems of community-based social care that need experience and dissemination
— The still prevailing medical model of health
— Unsuitable support strategies, fostering the emergence of “hospi- tals in the countryside”
— Changes in care systems that potentially reduce quality.
The shift from the medical to the social model in social and health care and the focus on the empowerment of users and their rights are all positive developments.